Look! That's the bridge that John Martin was building.

[Marika33]

Situation: We are in a boat and we're passing an unfinished bridge on a river near a small town. We know that this bridge was started by a famous businessman, let's call him John Martin. Two months after the construction began, the businessman died and the bridge was never finished. It's now abandoned and they don't plan to finish it because it's a small town and nobody really needs it. Is it natural, while passing this bridge in a boat, say this, "Look! That's the bridge that John Martin was building." Here we have no second action, and we do not specify a moment in the past, so we use the past continuous for the main idea. Still is it natural to say that?

 

[jutfrank]

Yes.

There is a 'second action' (he died) and there is a past point in time (before he died).

That's the bridge John Martin was building (before he died).

 

[Marika33]

Yes.

There is a 'second action' (he died) and there is a past point in time (before he died).

That's the bridge John Martin was building (before he died).

Thanks!

What if he didn't die, but just gave up building it and left it as it was (for whatever reason)? Is it still natural?

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, it's natural. What are you really trying to understand here?

 

[Marika33]

What are you really trying to understand here?

Some people here told me (#39) that if I just used the past conitnuous (with no second action or without specifying a moment in the past), they would wait for me to say what happened next or what happened while/when the first action was happening and if I did not eventually give that second action or a precise moment in the past, they would not understand why I had used the past conitnuous.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, that's right. You don't need actually to state the second action or the time frame explicitly, but it's implied in the meaning of the the grammar that there is a second action and a time frame.

Tarheel meant that he would ask you about what happened only if there was not enough context for it make sense otherwise. Usually, such information exists somewhere else in the surrounding context.

In the case of your example with the bridge, the person you're talking to knows what this second action is, whether it be that he died or he stopped for a different reason. The utterance wouldn't make sense otherwise.

You should be careful here not to overgeneralise what I'm saying because this implication of a second action is not true in every single case of the past continuous, but it's true in the majority of cases. The way many teachers teach the past continuous is as a narrative tense. That means a past continuous sentence makes sense only in contextual relation to another utterance, which is typically (but not always) in the past simple form.

 

[Marika33]

In the case of your example with the bridge, the person you're talking to knows what this second action is, whether it be that he died or he stopped for a different reason. The utterance wouldn't make sense otherwise.

If stopping doing the action is enough for me to use the past continuous in this sentence, why doesn't this logic apply to my other examples (from that thread #39)?

• Yesterday I was training my dog to give paw from 18:20 to 19:00. (until I stopped and decided to continue the training the next day)
• Yesterday I was painting a wall in my room for twenty minutes. (until I stopped and decided to finish it the next day)
• Yesterday I was teaching her to play the piano. (until we stopped)

You see what I'm talking about?

 

[jutfrank]

The logic does apply, yes. I don't see what you're asking. Please don't make me read the whole of the other thread again. Just ask a very clear question.

If stopping doing the action is enough for me to use the past continuous in this sentence, why doesn't this logic apply to my other examples (from that thread #39)?

• Yesterday I was training my dog to give paw from 18:20 to 19:00. (until I stopped and decided to continue the training the next day)
• Yesterday I was painting a wall in my room for twenty minutes. (until I stopped and decided to finish it the next day)
• Yesterday I was teaching her to play the piano. (until we stopped)

You see what I'm talking about?

Yes, that's all correct. What's your question exactly?

 

[Marika33]

I don't see what you're asking.

To be honest, I don't see what is not clear about what I'm asking.

Now, you're saying all those are correct and natural, but earlier #39 (in the other thread) Tarheel wrote something that looked like he was not satisfied with those sentences as they stood. Like he treated those sentences as incomplete ideas, like he waited for something that I should add, something that happened after/when/while those actions were happening.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, he's correctly pointing out that those sentences need context in order to make sense, Marika. That's what I'm trying to tell you too.

When we use an example sentence for discussion purposes, we assume that the sentence has a context. The sense comes not just from the words but from the context. If I come up to you out of the blue and just say "No", that doesn't make sense, right? But if you first ask me a question and I then say "No", then it does make sense!

 

[Tarheel]

@Marika33
I rarely use past continuous. Why? There isn't usually any need for it. I certainly wouldn't look for a reason to use it. (Which is what you seem to be doing.)

Liz: Why didn't you answer the phone when I called you?
Ron: I was napping.
Liz: Well, next time answer the phone.
Ron: Huh?

 

[jutfrank]

I rarely use past continuous. Why? There isn't usually any need for it.

Tarheel, this is undoubtedly very far from the case! As a native speaker you use the past continuous just as often as every other native speaker, which is very frequently because there very frequently is a reason to use it!

 

[Tarheel]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "frequently" In my case that certainly is not every day. If it was I wouldn't have to invent examples of its use. (That conversation didn't really happen.)